Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Onshore Oil and Gas Operations and Production
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Bureau of Land Management wants permission to ask people about their oil and gas activities on certain lands, and they're checking if they can keep doing this for three more years. They're also asking if people have ideas on how to make the questions easier or better.
Summary AI
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has requested the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection regarding onshore oil and gas operations. This collection, under OMB control number 1004-0137, involves oil and gas operators on public and some Indian lands, with an estimated 864 annual respondents providing 102,439 responses. The public is invited to comment on various aspects of the information collection, including its necessity and ways to reduce the burden on respondents, by January 9, 2025. There are no policy changes, but the BLM seeks to clarify burden estimates and extend the approval for three more years.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to renew an information collection with revisions.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has requested an extension of an information collection request (ICR) from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This collection pertains to onshore oil and gas operations on public lands and some Indian lands. Specifically, it seeks to renew the OMB control number 1004-0137 associated with these operations. The Bureau is soliciting comments on the necessity and impact of this collection, with a deadline for responses set for January 9, 2025.
General Summary
The BLM's notice outlines a request for continuation of data collection activities concerning oil and gas operations and production. It primarily involves oil and gas operators who respond to the collection through annual submissions. The Bureau estimates 864 respondents and a total of 102,439 responses yearly. There are no new policy changes, but adjustments will be made to burden estimates and the handling of specific responsibilities based on the shifts to OMB control number 1004-0220.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from the document's presentation. Firstly, it omits detailed explanations of the changes to burden estimates. The text states that certain responsibilities are moving to another control number but does not clarify what these shifts encompass. This lack of detail may obscure stakeholders’ understanding of any practical implications.
The estimated completion time per response is presented vaguely as "Varies depending on activity," lacking specific time estimates. This can hinder stakeholders' ability to gauge the actual effort and time commitment required. Additionally, the document employs bureaucratic language that could pose comprehension challenges for the general public not familiar with regulatory terminology.
Furthermore, there is no breakdown of the contributing activities to the total annual burden hours. Providing such granularity could offer clarity and help assess the accuracy of these estimates. The document also does not communicate how previous public comments influenced or altered the proposal, reducing transparency regarding how public engagement shapes agency decisions.
Impact on the Public
While the document maintains the status quo by not introducing policy changes, it plays a crucial role in the continued management and regulation of oil and gas operations on public lands. The public's ability to comment allows for a democratic process that could influence the efficiency and effectiveness of resource management.
The public is also reminded to exercise caution when submitting personal details within their comments, as these become part of public records. This notice, while routine, underpins the regulatory framework managing vital natural resources, impacting the public by ensuring their continued operation and oversight.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For oil and gas operators, particularly those operating on public lands or on Indian lands, this notice signals the continuation of reporting obligations under established regulations. However, without transparency regarding the shifts in administrative burdens, operators may find it challenging to prepare for any operational or administrative adjustments that may result.
Specific groups, such as Indian tribes, could be particularly affected by any administrative changes, although these impacts are not articulated within the document. Clearer communication about such implications would support stakeholders in understanding potential consequences and preparing for any transitions.
In summary, while the BLM's request is methodical and in line with existing regulatory practices, the notice could benefit from enhanced clarity and transparency in several areas. This would not only better inform stakeholders but also foster a more inclusive and participative regulatory process.
Issues
• The document does not clearly outline any specific changes in policy or program requirements, only mentioning changes related to burden estimates and moving certain burdens to a different OMB control number.
• The document mentions moving burdens but does not provide enough detail on what these burdens specifically entail, potentially making it difficult for stakeholders to understand the implications.
• The description of the estimated completion time per response is vague ('Varies depending on activity') and could benefit from more specific time estimates to better inform respondents of the expected effort required.
• The document's language is somewhat bureaucratic and may be difficult for laypersons or those not familiar with regulatory language to fully comprehend without additional explanation or simplification.
• There is no detailed breakdown of the types of activities that contribute to the total estimated number of annual burden hours, which could help in assessing the reasonableness of the estimate.
• The abstract mentions revisions to the information collection, but the notice lacks specific examples or explanations of these revisions, which could provide clarity to the respondents.
• The potential implications of this notice for specific groups, like Indian tribes, are not fully articulated, especially how the transfers of administrative burdens will affect them.
• There is no substantive discussion on how public comments collected in the previous 60-day comment period were addressed or used, which could provide transparency on stakeholder engagement.